32 Video Memory no longer supported?

I just called technical support about textures flickering in and out of existence. Basically Lee Lindin told me that 32 ram wasn't enough anymore. My question is why is it listed as being good enough then? Take it off the website, people. I'm getting horrible performance with it. I just assumed that if it's listed as being good enough then they would try to make the game playable with it. Right now I can't see anything but blur after blur after blur.

It was good enough before the update happened, textures loaded fine on 1.6, now they blow.

I certainly hope that Lee Linden was misinformed about that. Can anyone from Linden Labs verify this? Is LL officially telling people that they can't play with 32 MB video memory?

It would be a horrible mistake on LL's part to exclude all the users that only have 32MB of video memory. There are a LOT of systems out there, including brand new hardware, that simply can't be upgraded to more than that.

I have a Mac Mini. The system worked well enough for SL prior to the 1.7 release. But the only way to 'upgrade' it to more than 32 MB of video memory is to sell the computer and buy a much more expensive model. If Linden Labs officially says that 32 MB video memory is no longer sufficient, and that this is how it will be from here on out, then I'm selling all my SL assets and moving on. I have better uses for my money than upgrading my entire computer system just to play their game, when there is no justification for the increased requirements.

He said if there wasn't anything above 32 that I could select then I'm not going to be able to load the textures right. That's what he said, exactly. So they need to remove it as the standard. I've already posted this to the hotline. Nothing that makes the game this unplayable should be listed as the standard that you need.

Not to sound snooty but- 32 MB video Memory??? What? You run DOS or Windows 3.1 on that? I can understand a laptop (even tho mine has 64 MB, shared but it works) but what use is that now?? Do like the rest of us and buy/build/upgrade. A 64 MB video card is dirt cheap nowadays, mostly because as one person told me "who the Hell wants that?" AND- As an added benefit, more video memory will free up some of your CPU from having to process everything.

Should've bought a PC. Or a better MAC. I liked the Mini's but thats why I didnt bother considering buying one. Not upgradeable. And Apple is pricey for upgrades. Still, I'd love a G5

It's listed as the standard, that's the bloody problem. They need to support it or not. The least they can do is be honest about what they'll support.

I'd be happy if they were just making the client better but they're not. They're just making the client more bloated and they added nothing new. Why bork everything to hell, make texture loading even worse, for a better map?

My 1.24 GHz Mac Mini can run circles around Windows systems with 2.5 GHz processors. My ATI Radeon 9200 with 32MB DDR video memory is quite sufficient to produce ray-traced 3D rendered artwork that makes SL Graphics look like a grade school kid's 'fridge art'. I've used Macs, Windows, and UNIX systems, and I'll take Mac any day of the week for producing superior graphics, with a fraction of the effort. I'm not the least bit interested in switching to Windows, or even in building a PC just to use as a gaming system.

Yes, a lot of people are already considering 32 MB of video memory to be insufficient for really high-end graphics applications. Yes, it would be sweet to have something twice as fast, with loads more RAM and VRAM. But I can't afford to buy hardware like that.

I bought this system, new, less than a year ago. It was, at the time, the best system I could afford. It easily could do anything I asked of it, before I tried playing SL. And it ran reasonably well on SL version 1.6.

There are people posting on these forums who say they have high-end dual-processor systems and video cards that have 256 MB Video Ram on board, and THEY are having performance issues! So what do the Lindens think we have on our desks?

This ISN'T just an issue of 'needing better hardware'. It's an issue of an upgrade that is making unnecessary demands on the video cards and on the available RAM, and which gives us very little in return. If the official line from the Lindens is that they don't care about users with 32 Mb of video, that they won't fix this, then they are going to see a lot of people leave.

And what, pray tell, is so wonderful about 1.7x that makes it worth all that? Very little that I can see. Prettier skies and water? What else, that actually works?

Well it's obviously not powerful enough to run Second Life. I've had no problems with the graphics. And I have them CRANKED up!! Ray-traced graphics aren't anything to brag about. I was producing those on Pentium systems years ago.

A Radeon 9200?? Holy Crap!!! you got Ripped!! And if Mac was too expensive for a decent system, you should've went with a PC.

And your Mac Mini can't run circles around it, otherwise you wouldnt be having graphics issues.

And lest we forget, hasnt apple switched to Intel processors? At one time Mac was THE computer for graphics, but now- no. Dual SLI 7800 graphic cards & 64-Bit Athlon processors for me thank you very much. Cost a chunk o' change but was worth every last bit of blood sweat & tears.

Mac Mini's are the E-Machines of the Mac world. A good starter computer. I was looking at 'em but they were too underpowered for my tastes. So I saved my money & bought/built a machine that has no trouble with graphics. And BTW- SL graphics are low-end graphics. Nothing to brag about being able to run. Simple stuff. I have games that look better (run better too).

As the old saying goes "You wanna play, you gotta pay"

As for 1.7.X? eh. It works. Sort of. Seems they need to fix a few things- soon!

The official position of lindens is basically they dont care. I too had a round with Lee Linden, an actually very nice, patient young man considering I was in fact frothing angry at the time and getting increasingly so.

however, his statement that, since I myself was on Direcway satellite connection, all of my problems (which are the same as everyone else's problems I have read about thus far) stem from my connection and I actually heard his fellow techs yuckking it up at me in the background. "poor silly fool, to expect to use our program on such inferior technology"
this computer I am running it on is very good hardware wise, not the most expensive, not the cheapest, just very good. even with 128 mb of graphics memory the textures were making my card over heat but somehow this was the fault of my sat connection
once I said those words 'direcway satellite internet' everything became the fault of my connection.
never mind that all of my neighbors in my sim were having the exact same issues
never mind that the forum posts I have seen here have indicated also similiar issues with the new upgrade(s)

for the record, I came in to SL on 1.6 and it ran BEAUTIFULLY with out one hitch glitch or problem
it was so good, I upgraded to a premium account
it was soo good after that I said what the hell and paid for a year
1.7 happened and it all went to hell in a handbasket
and I am told, poor silly fool, your on satellite, only the hardwired broadband users can expect support from us.
*end of rant, thank you for reading*
Mystic

Yea, with all the newer graphics stuff being pushed in Satellite wont cut it. Its not cut out to compete with broadband. Last I knew it was around 500 KbPs Download & 50 KbPS upload. But still... It's cool that you use Satellite! Least I think so.

Uh oh. My card is 64MB, and my money is going into my land tier; if I have to buy a new computer the next time they "up the ante" in video memory requirements, LL'll lose money from me and everyone else in this predicament.

I'm almost afraid to get into the game in case my junk isn't supported any more...

Not necessarily. Depends if you have integrated video card or is it a seperate component, in which case you just buy a new one. 128 MB cards arent expensive at all.

actually for the most part I have a rock steady 128kps download rate and at least 56kps if not better upload rate, I use direcway not starband
I also use the new dw6000 two way modem with built in router that is a heck of a lot faster then the old dw4000 systems and does not require proprietary software, just plug it into your network, and away you go...

also to note, I have never run up against my 'fair access policy' download limit, running SL... so they havent choked my feed either, except for that time around the 1st of the month when LL admitted to having major networking problems on their end. once they fixed those, everything was fine, and actually I had a couple of days of very good performance, 1.6 quality, which for me was very good!

but since the 1.7 downgrade, its been toilet material for the most part

How can you afford a Mac and not a PC

I just bought a new computer surely not the best but runs SL 1.7 just fine, only time i have any real problems is when there are lotsa people around.

Intel Pentium D 3.2 GHz Dual Core
1024 MB DDR RAM
(heres where I saved) Intel(R) 82915G/GV/910Gl Express Chipset Family 256 MB Vid RAM
Windows XP Professional SP 2
And a plain ol' 17 LCD Flat Panel Monitor

All that for 936 dollars. Could have been cheaper if i had gotten a plain ol monitor by far cheaper, if you all ready have a monitor the Tower its self was only 450 bucks. So if you cant afford that and can afford a mac, or you just dont want to switch you have more than just issues with your hardware. Sorry not trying to be mean or anything. Just that I think its more you dont want to leave your beloved mac to play a game you say you really enjoy. Sell your mac get a decent PC that or Keep your mac and dont play.

The official specs to my knowledge have been a for at least a year saying that the minimum is 64bit.

Yes, well that's the advantage of optimized operating systems. Still, when something does come a long and need a certain amount of hardware requirements for things, such as intense graphic requirements, if the hardware can't do it, there aren't any decent workarounds for that.


I can buy 64bit graphic cards secondhand for 15 USD, you're able to afford a mac mini, internet connection etc. But you can't afford 15 USD?


The mac mini is a low end machine, not a gaming machine, just because you could only afford to buy a low end machine doesn't mean that all games, all hardware intensive applications should run on it. Theres a reason why it's low end.

I have a six year old system right now for SL, it's not too bad for playing SL, why? Because it was a high end system at it's time. It's funny that a high end system from six years ago beats a low end system from later times for me.


Most of those issues are actually using local lighting, which aren't using hardware acceleration per say. Infact, the method they're using is compatible with all systems for local lighting, that's the kind of issues you start having when you try to make things universally supported by most hardware.


Before I joined SL, I was told I needed 64bit RAM, this was back just before 1.6 came out.



I love the HUD attachments, I like how detailed the new map system is. I really like the concepts being done to solve scripts from taking away sim time dialation however there are bugs currently. Then again, I think it was a error on Lindenlabs part for not testing their release client on the preview grid first exstensively for the current bugs and many issues we have on SL.

On another note, I have never known a company to make a application such as secondlife, be able to at least run it, on hardware lower than the minimum requirements.

My Mac mini cost me less than $500 USD, so I spend about the same on that as you did on your tower, not including monitors for either of us. However, I also already own thousands of dollars worth of high-end Mac applications like MS Office, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and others, which I would also have to replace if I were to switch to a Windows system. Sorry, but I can't afford to blow $3000 or more on applications software, just to use a $500 Windows system.

You spent more on your 17" flat panel display than I did on my computer? Goody for you. I'm glad you had the money to blow. I'm 'making do' with an old 1280 x 1024 HP CRT monitor that my employer discarded.

I don't have room in my home to set up a second computer system just for games. Have you ever seen a Mac Mini? It's built more compactly than a laptop system. The entire computer, including the DVD-RW drive, is so small it would fit in one drive expansion bay in your Windows tower system, with room to spare. Looks like a small external CD burner. In fact, my external hard drive that I use for backups is bigger than the whole computer. For my somewhat cramped little home, it's absolutely wonderful. Unfortunately, the price of that ultra-compact design is that the only real post-factory upgrade that it can have is to upgrade the RAM memory. Everything else, including the video card, is integrated. No expansion slots or bays. So no, I can't just go out and but a better video card. No more so than most laptop owners could.

The next step up the Mac line costs a bit over twice as much - $1299 or so. That one would have offered a better video card and more max RAM. But to get a tower configuration with expansion slots and user-upgradable video cards, I'd have to spend roughly $2000 for a G5 Tower with a dual-core CPU, which I could upgrade later to a second dual-core CPU, more ram, expansion cards, and all that. Unfortunately, Apple caters more to the 'use it as you bought it' crowd, rather than the 'buy it and tinker/upgrade forever' market. When you buy a Mac, you don't usually have to even think about also buying a video card, a keyboard, a mouse, network cards, or other add-ons. It's pretty much ready-to use, right out of the box. Just load a few applications and go.

We could argue which is better, Mac or Windows, for years and likely never reach an agreement. It's like Ford and Chevy. You like what you like. I've used all the software platforms, and I've supported all sorts of desktop and workstation class systems professionally, as a systems administrator. For ease of use, application integration and system stability, in my opinion, Macs win hands-down.

To get back on track for this thread, however, the published minimum specs for Second Life say that my system is adequate. I am a basic member, and I don't pay monthly fees or own land. But I've spend a fair amount of real US dollars buying Lindens, so I can buy stuff in-world to enjoy. And yet it seems that I never will be able to properly enjoy those in-world assets, because the real specs for running Second Life exceed what my computer is capable of. If Linden Labs had been honest with people, and if they had also published a set of 'Recommended' specs that were the least bit realistic, indicating that I needed far more ram and a far better video card, then I never would have downloaded the Second Life client software in the first place.

From the Hotline Discussion:

Lee Lindin: I apologize if there was any confusion in our discussion. If I remember correctly, your Second Life Preferences had a Video Card Memory of 32MB. You had mentioned that the other options were greyed out, and you couldn't select a higher memory value.

The average scene in Second Life can have thousands of textures that may take up 128MB of texture memory or more. If your video card is limited to 32MB, the textures will be reduced in detail (and subsequently blurred) to fit within the video space Second Life is permitted to use. If I set my Second Life settings to 32MB texture memory as well, I'll see the same thing as you (even though my graphics memory is 256MB).

The question then becomes, why can't you choose a higher setting? Those choices in Preferences are greyed out based on what the operating system (OS X in your case) tells us the video card is capable of.

If you're looking for further action (which I'm assuming, given your forums activity), the first step is to consult with your laptop manufacturer and determine just how much graphics memory (also called video memory) your computer has. (Don't confuse this with system memory, which is also reported as megabytes. They're quite different and aren't related.) If it has more than 32MB of video memory, the question then becomes why the OS is preventing us from using more than 32MB.

Our Minimum System Requirements are, quite simply, the minimum level of hardware and software that allows Second Life to load and be used. If you don't meet the minimum requirements, Second Life will most likely either refuse to load, or will be near-unusable. If you have Windows 98, or a TNT2 graphics card, or a dialup connection, for example, you're not really going to be able to do anything in Second Life.

As such, the minimum requirements are also the hardware and software we have tested Second Life with. Our primary Minimum Requirements test involves running a minimum-spec machine through a static piece of content (namely, our Orientation Islands) to see how performance changes from version to version. Second Life, however, is never static. I guarantee you the average avatar you meet, the average build you go to, and the average scripted object you interact with are more detailed, more varied, and more interesting today than the average avatar/build/script was two years ago. As such, while performance with the same content may be unchanged (or even improved) as time goes by, the "average" content in Second Life puts a greater and greater load on low-end equipment as the world becomes more detailed.

So, the Minimum Requirements continue to be the hardware required to use Second Life successfully. At the same time, it's becoming more apparent that there's a "Recommended" set of hardware that provides the best possible experience. I'd eyeball my own recommendations as a 1.6GHz processor, 512MB system memory (preferably more), and a GeForce FX 5200 or Radeon 9700 or greater (with 128MB video memory or more). Content creators or those intending to run other programs at the same time should probably aim a bit higher, especially as far as system memory is concerned.

We're still looking into ways we can easily benchmark resident's systems (preferably before they join) and let them know the experience they can expect.

*****************************

I'm on an ibook which can't be updated. I won't be updating my membership. I wish I'd never paid for this software. I'm trashing the client.

(sorry mis-quoted the name)

I looked at Apple's site & found what I think is the Mac Mini in question- it's the lowest priced one @ $499. Kinda like buying the cheapest Dell system & crying it doesnt play Doom 3 with graphics at Ultra High

Heh- just noticed she/he mentions aaaallll the software they're running. What I'd like to know is how? Photoshop is a known RAM hog both motherboard & video. Dreamweaver is easy. And MS Office is high end??? Heh! Try Open Office. Same thing. But free! Gotta love open source.

NOW- if she has this software, if you cant afford the higher end Mac's, how can you afford the software??? Those progs aint cheap.

Your Mac Mini may meet Minimum specs, but that doesnt help. If you want smooth running then you'll have to do better than minimum. Your system may be fine for Web Pages (which is what I assume you use it for) but it's not a gaming machine by any means.

Yea, they are very tiny. They'd be great for putting in a car to work as a MP3 Player, etc. Hmmm, I just might have to do that!



We could but that's kinda dumb- one is a computer the other is an Operating system. I prefer Linux myself.

Fear the Penguin!!!

As a common practice of games published I think it would be good idea that LL updated their website to include a minimum and recommended specification. Just about any software (generally games) have a minimum and recommended specification mentioned on their product. If you could, state the effects of what the minimum specifications can lead to as stated by Chris Linden.

The kind of information that even though may seem obvious to some folks is not that so obvious to others. Having a clear intention of what to expect is helpful to know rather than jumping in and getting a very bad first impression.

EDIT: I am referring to this link: http://secondlife.com/whatis/sysreqs.php

Think you need to look again. They clearly state 32MB Video card.

PC Requirements: • Graphics Card: Nvidia Geforce 2 (32MB RAM) or higher, or ATI Radeon 8500 (32MB RAM) or higher • Computer: 800MHZ or higher, 256MB RAM or more • OS: Windows XP/2000 • Internet Connection: Broadband (DSL/Cable Modem/LAN) • DirectX 8 or 9
Mac OS X Requirements: • Graphics Card: GeForce 2 or better, ATI Radeon 8500 or better • Computer: 1 GHZ G4 or better, 512 MB of RAM • OS: Mac OS 10.3.8 or higher • Internet Connection: Broadband (DSL/Cable Modem/LAN)

*shrug* i can never agree on Requirements / min required for anything online or for games anymore, always double / tripple anything thats "Required".

Found it funny way to put it - Requirements ?-, should be spelled more like "Barly bootable/playable and good luck doing anything".

And yes they say 32mb , doesnt mean it will be any good at it, some pc even have shared memory so thats even worse <.< ,,, lowest i played SL on was a gf mx460 , 64mb ram, it was sooo slow.

What Chris Lindin (? whats with the spelling here) wrote
"1.6GHz processor, 512MB system memory (preferably more), and a GeForce FX 5200 or Radeon 9700 or greater (with 128MB video memory or more)"

Fits SL more then their old requirments, do yourself a favour and update your Requirements LL! , stop fooling people to think they can even move on the current one, except in very empty, no avatar sims.

By 'high-end' apps, I meant comparatively expensive ones to purchase or replace. I accumulated my applications over several years, saving for them when I could, and upgrading older versions as I could afford them. Some I bought while I or my spouse were still in college or working for a university, when we could still get Academic discounts. Some I got when an older version went on sale, prior to the release of a hot new version. Some I got for free, as promotional give-aways at trade shows, or on vendor websites. Those apps we have generally been able to upgrade since then, though usually skipping a release version or two each time, to save money.

Unfortunately, we no longer qualify for academic discounts, and our wages haven't kept up with inflation. Meanwhile our expenses have gone up, due to having a child who is now of school age, higher gas prices, and general inflation. So I effectively make less now that I used to, for doing the same work. What I could afford a few years ago is out of my budget range now. Which is why I still use Photoshop 7, and can't afford to update it yet.

The luxury of building a computer just to play games on pales in comparison to keeping up with a mortgage, two car payments, a child's school and clothing expenses, and things like eyeglasses for all three of us. Like I said, I have more important uses for my money than building a computer to meet the specs of some game. When some of you grow up and become parents, maybe you'll understand what it is like for me. If you're still in school and living with your parents, I doubt you could.

Blurring the discussion with Mac vs. PC arguments, pricing of video adaptors and the evolving complexity of SL objects is pointless. In a nutshell it boils down to:

pre 1.7, 32MB vidram usable.

post 1.7, 32MB vidram not usable.

Following this upgrade, LL *must* update their minimum requirement specs.